"If there is no struggle, there is no progress." To paraphrase Frederick Douglass' quote: to struggle is to compete; to compete is to progress. Competition means there are those who are superior and those who are inferior, and it is human nature to be the best; to be "number one." This is the way the world works; the way progress occurs. When a company achieves dominance over a market, their competitors strive to be better, so that they may claim the title of "number one." This cycle continues. Thus, advancement is a loop.
The nations of the world are in competition. Each nation has a different tactic; our nation is a machine that depends on each of its parts to contribute. Being made of parts is the strongest point and the weakest point of a machine. Each part of the machine is responsible to contribute its part, and being isolated to one duty allows maximum efficiency. However, this means if that a single part, the screws, nuts, or bolts were to loosen and fall, the machine would fall as well. Our societal machine is no different. If the gears of transportation and innovation, or the switch of administration cease to work, then the machine ceases to work as well. That is the problem of advancement, that dependency is absolute, drifting away from natural forces and toward the people that we are trying to better; our community.
Our capitalist system gives the people power and freedom. Our capitalist system takes the evil part of human nature and turns it into good. The problem it has, though, is that it rises the evil parts out of people who many not wish to be evil. In competition, each member takes pride in another member's failure, yet they depend on that failure; thus, the evil of capitalism. Advancement is a loop. It is impossible to break this loop now, because in order for one to have a future, the people must embrace the current advancements and utilize them to advance further. This means that they must become evil themselves; become greedy, competitive, and, as a result, care little for others.
As we progress, we take the shortest possible route to solving a problem. As a result, the usual product is an increase in problems, but a new generation is born by the time those problems arise. It seems that this generation is left with the problem of the environment. People did whatever it took in order to become "number one," and a nasty byproduct was the destruction of the natural resources of the world.
This generation has been given many choices. The Ozone Layer, under ideal conditions, would repair itself in 50 years. Does this generation pause progress to allow the repair of our world?
Progress is not progress if it must be reborn. If we progress and the end result is the destruction of mankind, then progress has, in fact, not progressed at all. Yet our generation still has the problem that has been handed down from many generations. Chances are, this generation won't care much for the environment either.
Fifty years to repair the ozone means fifty years of progress must be stopped. In the past fifty years, not much has been accomplished. Not much, but expand communication to the point where it can be fit into our pockets. Not much, except create a color television with more channels than one could care to watch. Not much, except create the personal computer. Not much, except to step toward mastery of the automobile. Why give up fifty more years of advancements for the sake of the environment? Those who follow environmental and ethical ways lose in a world where the corrupt lead the ranks. Progress will lead, ironically, to our downfall as a race.
It makes no difference if we can travel thousands of miles in a matter of minutes. It makes no difference if we no longer need to work all day, simply to survive. The community has been lost in the name of progress. People no longer care for each other. This is the hindrance to progress: ethics. Ethics puts limits on progress, which raises the question: should there be limits on progress?
Is it okay for a person or group of people to do whatever it takes to be the paramount? The most powerful people, companies, and nations had to step on little people or be corrupt to become the best. Is it okay to simply "thank the little people" and remain at the top? Do the ends justify the means? Yes. If the ends benefit the whole, then the means are justified, as long as they are insignificant compared to the ends. Yet, in our world, we have totally forgotten what "the ends" are. At the top, that which is superior to all abuses the power given at that rank and does not even produce any good for the future of the human race.
Our system of government prevents any abuse of power, due to checks and balances. However, because it allows capitalist actions, it allows evil actions as well. It is barely questionable that the United States is the largest economic power in the world today. However, it allows the tobacco industry to survive, even after innumerable studies that their products are toxic. The motive behind this is none other than a monetary reason. The tobacco industry brings countless income into the United States, giving them money from taxes and boosting the economy of our nation. The industry even goes as far as to hurt the people within the nation, boosting the economy twofold through double taxes. In this case, "the ends" have been completely selfish. "The ends" do not benefit mankind; therefore they are useless and the question of whether the means are justified can be thrown out.
Be that as it may, the industry provides what consumers want. The consumer wishes for an addictive, tobacco filled stick, and that is what the industry provides. People no longer care for what they need, but rather, what they want.
In the 20th century, there was a new craze. No longer were people trying to understand the world; they wanted something else. Money and addiction aside, there is another thing which humans have been striving to achieve for the entire duration of mankind. Mankind wishes to work less. We wish for efficient tools, and many companies offer products that may lessen our workload. However, mankind is never satisfied, and continually asks for things that will lessen the workload.
Advancement is a loop. Imagine a world where the looping demand for less work sends us to a point where we turn a wheel and everything works. There must be some intelligent people to create such a machine, but they will soon die. Then, the goal of mankind will be to improve this machine to the point where it is simply pulling a lever. In the next generation, it will be to flip a switch, or press a button, or the machine may be self-activating, calculating when a need arises. No one will bother to learn, as there will be no need.
There will be a point, however, when the machine will break down. The world must then restart, as all has been forgotten. There are books, but with no one to tell what the words mean, they are useless.
People want things to be fast, and the other parts of the machine are in competition to provide this service. They do not wish to fall behind, for money's sake, so they make irrational decisions. The irony of this progress is that the faster we progress, the closer we reach our own demise.
Capitalism exploits the evil nature of human beings. Communism depends too much on the good-natured. The ideal combination is when there is no money, but to have the people motivated to work through competition. The perfect combination is where people consider self-respect a reward.
Return to the machine example. If we can still care for the community yet contribute individual efforts, then that would be ideal. However, we do not live in an ideal world.
In our 5-minute-pot-pie, cliff-notes world, we revere the wrong things. Generosity is taken advantage of; ethical decisions are considered "stupid," and the rich are corrupt and corrupt the masses.
In Los Angeles, an immigrant, Franco Gonzales, washes dishes in a nearby restaurant. He is the example of "when ethics is right." Take into account an experience he had, August 27th 2001, when an armored truck accidentally had its rear doors open and leave behind a bag of money, containing $203,000. The next morning, he turns in the money in a laundry bag to police to ask a solitary question: "Can I have my laundry bag back?" Franco comments, "Everybody says I'm an idiot."
This "idiot" is the model solution to a good-natured world. Not everyone can be like Franco, however, and it is impossible to force people to become good-natured. Capitalism is currently the best type of government because people are evil, but they produce good results. The only way that we can stray away from capitalism is to gradually teach ethics to future generations. However, people do not change simply because they are told to do so. The recent events of Enron and WorldCom are a prime example to future generations about "when you're not ethical." If we make an example of these corrupt people, finally getting what they deserve. However, corrupt things still happen. If mankind can find all the corrupt acts and actually punish the wrongdoers, people will gradually, even if it's a slow, gradual move, become good-natured.
The problem we have is that we don't want to exploit the corrupt. Like the United States' tobacco issue, the income that people would get makes them reluctant to change.
We need to lie. It is an unethical way to bring about ethical actions. The ends will justify the means, because the means are insignificant compared to the ends. We need to tell fake stories; we need more fables about the follies of imaginary, unethical people.
We need another renaissance, another rebirth of the human heart. The cold, dreary world we live in is not the best that life can be. In our efforts to make life simpler, we lost the simplicity exemplified by the renaissance.
The social contract of our world should be expanded further. Giving people individual rights only makes them want more, and have them be unwilling to give them up.
If we think ahead and we work hard, the good of the world will be our reward.